Delhi High Court: The present appeal was filed appellant-husband under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’) against the impugned judgment and decree dated 18-12-2021 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Southwest District, Dwarka, New Delhi (‘the Family Court’). The Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ., opined that respondent-wife’s admission to sending a message containing derogatory language towards appellant’s father and filing of complaints with his employer, could be considered as cruelty as such incidents create an atmosphere of tension and instability within the marital relationship, causing emotional harm to both parties involved. The Court set aside the judgment dated 18-12-2021 passed by the Family Court to the effect it dismissed the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA filed by appellant. The Court thus allowed the appeal and granted divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA, to appellant.
Background
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25-1-2011 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and a male child was born out of this wedlock on 26-9-2011. The parties were living separately since 6-9-2011. Appellant filed a petition before the Family Court under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA and submitted that soon after their marriage, respondent showed her discomfort and in their short span of living together, he had endured severe mental torture and anguish from respondent. Appellant also submitted that respondent conveyed to him that the marriage was coerced upon her by her parents, and she displayed a lack of interest in the marital bond.
Appellant submitted that respondent neglected her marital responsibilities and insisted on extravagant demands, surpassing his financial means. Appellant alleged that after the birth of their child, respondent was living at her parents’ house. On 13-1-2012, respondent made an abusive phone call to him and his parents and since then, she was sending complaints to his employer, the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’), with the intention of causing him embarrassment and humiliation in front of his colleagues. Thus, appellant filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA seeking divorce from respondent.
Respondent refuted all the accusations against her, asserting that it was appellant who had deserted her and their son. She submitted that on 26-9-2011, she underwent surgery, resulting in the premature birth of a baby boy. Thereafter, she was advised complete bed rest, but nobody from appellant’s family visited the hospital during this period and following the delivery, she made numerous attempts to reach appellant to join them at their matrimonial home with their minor son but received no response. Thus, respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of HMA seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights.
Thereafter, vide impugned judgment dated 18-12-2021, the Family Court dismissed the petition preferred by appellant seeking divorce and the petition by respondent seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Thus, appellant filed an appeal against dismissal of his petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the Family Court while dismissing appellant’s petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA observed that appellant had accused respondent of committing cruelty by narrating various incidents, including threats by brandishing a knife, and sending vulgar messages, however, had failed to provide sufficient proof of these claims. Further, the Family Court in respondent’s petition under Section 9 of HMA, seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights, observed that no evidence was led by her to show that she was thrown out of the matrimonial house by appellant.
The Court also noted that the Family Court observed that “the words ‘Budha’, ‘Lalchi Budha’ admittedly used by respondent against appellant’s father were certainly derogatory and not expected to be used by daughter-in-law for her father-in-law”. But the Family Court held that “this allegation in no manner can be taken as to satisfy the conscious of the Court that because of this conduct of respondent it would have been impossible for the parties to live together without mental agony, torture or distress”.
The Court opined that the Family Court failed to appreciate that spouses engaging in defamatory language directed towards one’s in-laws, not only undermines the dignity and reputation of the individuals but also erodes the trust and respect necessary for a healthy marital bond. The Court further opined that respondent’s admission to sending a message containing derogatory language towards appellant’s father demonstrated a lack of respect and consideration within the relationship. These actions undermine the foundations of mutual respect and support, essential for a healthy marital bond.
The Court noted that respondent admitted that she sent various complaints to the RBI against appellant and thus opined that “whether the complaints were false or true, irrespective of this fact, making derogatory complaints to the employer of spouse, with intent to harm professional reputation and financial well-being, was nothing but cruelty. Making such complaints demonstrate lack of mutual respect and goodwill, which was crucial for a healthy marriage and merely by stating that such complaints were made after the parties have separated, in no manner absolves a spouse from the guilt of committing cruelty on the receiving end”.
The Court noted that appellant and respondent only lived together for less than a year and after birth of their child, they entered into multiple legal disputes, lasting over 10 years. The Court opined that “prolonged litigations between spouses, undermines the potential for amicable resolution, exacerbates animosity, and impedes the parties’ ability to move forward constructively. This extended legal battle had inflicted significant emotional, psychological, and financial strain on both parties, thereby perpetuating a hostile and contentious environment. Consequently, the persistent engagement in litigation over an extended period could be viewed as a form of cruelty, spanning over a decade, can be construed as cruelty”.
The Court relied on Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein it was stated that “prolonged legal battles could harm both parties, similar to cruelty”. The Court thus opined that respondent’s admission to sending a message containing derogatory language towards appellant’s father and filing of complaints with his employer, could be considered as cruelty as such incidents create an atmosphere of tension and instability within the marital relationship, causing emotional harm to both parties involved.
The Court concluded that respondent by absenting herself for cross-examination had willingly opted to not substantiate her allegations against appellant and by making false allegations of adultery, making complaints to his employer, passing derogatory comments against his father, and filing multiple litigations against him, she had committed mental cruelty upon appellant within the ambit of Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA. The Court opined that respondent lived for less than a year with appellant and had deliberately chosen to stay with her parents and son, thereby depriving appellant of marital bliss and fatherhood. Further, by filing a petition under Section 9 of HMA, and then not pursuing it, she made a deliberate attempt to delay the divorce proceedings, causing further harassment to appellant. Thus, it was clear that respondent’s conduct towards appellant amounted to cruelty.
The Court set aside the judgment dated 18-12-2021 passed by the Family Court to the effect it dismissed the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA filed by appellant. The Court allowed the appeal and granted divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA, to appellant.
[X v. Y, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2335, decided on 2-4-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate; Kanishk Ahuja, Advocate
For the Respondent: Priya Puri, Ranjan Dubey, Advocates
